More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 11:54 (3188 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: “How can an organism be said to “plan” or “invent”...if it is preprogrammed or directed to act in a certain way?” The fact that these limitations *** (which are not guidelines, because they do not guide the organism - they only impose restrictions) are broad and you believe humans were the goal does not answer my question.-*** The limitations imposed on organisms by their own nature and their environment-DAVID: It does answer the question in my context that only God can create new species. The same either/or result: on onboard mechanism with full instructions or direct intervention. My guidelines come with full instructions. Where they are limitations is in the area of epigenetic alterations within species that maintain species identity. Whether epigenetic changes can create new species is unknown at this time but I doubt it.-Thank you for this answer and the earlier part of your post expressing the same view.... I am going to put it into my own words, in an attempt to end all the misunderstandings. Firstly, “full instructions” and “direct intervention” do not leave room even for semi-autonomy (whatever that means) or inventiveness or planning. According to you, every single innovation - and also every complex lifestyle (monarch butterfly, plover) and constructed home (weaverbird's nest, anthill) - was the result either of a full programme passed down from the very first cells of 3.8 thousand million years ago, or of God directly manipulating the genome of all the organisms involved. God also set up programmes for adaptation (epigenetic alterations), though presumably he organized these in such a way that they would not work for vast numbers of species, which would die out. His purpose in all this was to produce humans.-Please correct any errors. And if you haven't already done so, do please read Tony's penetrating critique of your hypothesis (“Reply to Tony”: August 3 at 21.13).